The five idiots voted incorrectly. I noticed you do not print the other side of the story! Typical left-winged, loonish blog......
Johny
· 1 year ago
guess you`r the one viewing the wrong side off the story
Keith
· 1 year ago
Is there another side of the story Gail? perhaps you might favor us with your typical right winged loonish propaganda. well on second thought, i guess that is precisely what you did. simply claiming that there is another side of the story and hurling insults do not constitute a rational argument. and when that doesn't work, don't go for the scare factor, "it's going to compromise our national security, we'll all be killed". actually convey a meaningful reason why holding a group of men, without due process, and in conflict with the constitution of the US, is an action which is necessary, desirable, and not an embarassment to our country and the principles for which we stand. and then explain what benefit we gain by not trying these men fairly, levying punishment if deserved or freeing them if it is found that the evidence against them is wanton.
Mark
· 1 year ago
If the rule of law and the constitution are supposed to survive even in extraordinary circumstances, then why did they suspend the 2nd amendment in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. I hope President Bush sends the illegal enemy combatants to a top secret overseas prison and then waterboards them when they get there just for the the hassle that the liberals have caused.
Al Billings
· 1 year ago
Wow, you post something political, John, and the Right Wind pundits just pop out of the woodwork. Where do they hide the rest of the time?
I tend to agree with Dan Carlin that our torture of people, whether they "deserve" it or not is an extremely shameful action and reflects badly on us as a society. If the people that support this (along with things like detaining people without due process for years at a time) had the courage of their convictions, they would be building torture and detainment centers in Kansas City, not keeping them outside of the United States or secretly operating them in ex-communist nations. It seems to me that the fact that these things are questionable is self-evident since we aren't willing to actually do them here and that even their proponents are ashamed of them, even if they will not admit it in public.
As much as the United States has never lived up to its lofty ideals in its treatment of many groups, this embrace of all of those things that we considered to be representative of "evil" empires in our "War on Terror" is not going to seen favorably in future decades, assuming we don't continue our self-propelled slide into dictatorship. The terrorists are simply an excuse for this. As tragic as the death of a few thousand people in New York City was (and I am and was as appalled by it as anyone), it has been used as an excuse to engage in behavior by various governmental parties that we should never tolerate as citizens.
Stan
· 1 year ago
Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
Where does he come up with that I wonder. Sounds like the same lame argument some make to supress all other rights...Miranda warnings, exclusionary rules, right to counsel, etc...(until a right winger becomes a criminal defendant! Then they want all the rights they can get, right Rush? Hey Olie North, what up!!)
Historically, time and time again the Court has denied rights (a la Scalia et al.) only to reverse itself years later by subsequent Courts. Segregation; child labor laws; minimum wage laws; concentration camps for Japanese Americans...all issues that won the day at first, only to swept aside by the Courts and the public.
Good thing they didn't make the same mistake this time. Go Supremes!
Al Billings
· 1 year ago
Oh, they made this mistake "this time" since, as I recall, this is the *third* time that this issue has been decided. The previous two instances were worked around by the other branches of government. We keep coming back to this again and again.
I had a close friend of mine, who is pretty far to the right, tell me that these people didn't deserve rights and he laughed when I discussed the ethics of denying rights to prisoners (or human beings) because they were non-citizens detained by us. He actually rolled his eyes when I mentioned the the principles of various Founding Fathers (peace be on them) that had seen what a dictatorial crown could do when it wanted. As far as he is concerned (and many others, I know) "terrorists" that we capture don't deserve rights and can rot in jail, without a trial or legal counsel, forever while we torture them all that we want.
It saddens me and I'm not even engaging in hyperbole here. It really does sadden me and makes me worried (more) for this country's future that this seems to be a common set of opinions.
All Comments
I tend to agree with Dan Carlin that our torture of people, whether they "deserve" it or not is an extremely shameful action and reflects badly on us as a society. If the people that support this (along with things like detaining people without due process for years at a time) had the courage of their convictions, they would be building torture and detainment centers in Kansas City, not keeping them outside of the United States or secretly operating them in ex-communist nations. It seems to me that the fact that these things are questionable is self-evident since we aren't willing to actually do them here and that even their proponents are ashamed of them, even if they will not admit it in public.
As much as the United States has never lived up to its lofty ideals in its treatment of many groups, this embrace of all of those things that we considered to be representative of "evil" empires in our "War on Terror" is not going to seen favorably in future decades, assuming we don't continue our self-propelled slide into dictatorship. The terrorists are simply an excuse for this. As tragic as the death of a few thousand people in New York City was (and I am and was as appalled by it as anyone), it has been used as an excuse to engage in behavior by various governmental parties that we should never tolerate as citizens.
Where does he come up with that I wonder. Sounds like the same lame argument some make to supress all other rights...Miranda warnings, exclusionary rules, right to counsel, etc...(until a right winger becomes a criminal defendant! Then they want all the rights they can get, right Rush? Hey Olie North, what up!!)
Historically, time and time again the Court has denied rights (a la Scalia et al.) only to reverse itself years later by subsequent Courts. Segregation; child labor laws; minimum wage laws; concentration camps for Japanese Americans...all issues that won the day at first, only to swept aside by the Courts and the public.
Good thing they didn't make the same mistake this time. Go Supremes!
I had a close friend of mine, who is pretty far to the right, tell me that these people didn't deserve rights and he laughed when I discussed the ethics of denying rights to prisoners (or human beings) because they were non-citizens detained by us. He actually rolled his eyes when I mentioned the the principles of various Founding Fathers (peace be on them) that had seen what a dictatorial crown could do when it wanted. As far as he is concerned (and many others, I know) "terrorists" that we capture don't deserve rights and can rot in jail, without a trial or legal counsel, forever while we torture them all that we want.
It saddens me and I'm not even engaging in hyperbole here. It really does sadden me and makes me worried (more) for this country's future that this seems to be a common set of opinions.